ondafarm and I have been having a fairly interesting Podsednik/Lee debate over in an obscure thread about the Brewers minor-league system. We disagree on how to interpret some stats about Lee, and I'd like to hear what others have to say.

ondafarm and I have been having a fairly interesting Podsednik/Lee debate over in an obscure thread about the Brewers minor-league system. We disagree on how to interpret some stats about Lee, and I'd like to hear what others have to say.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=42796&page=2&pp=18 where the discussion is one on one lee vs pods i don't think there's much question that lee is the superior player. i fail to see how anyone could argue otherwise. that, of course, is why there was much more to the deal than that.
as for interpreting stats, that's more mental masturbation than anything else. two different kinds of players and too many variables to get real specific.
over all i'm happy with taking a chance on this deal (and a chance it is) because it's part of a revolution the sox have needed for a couple years now. lee could turn out to still be everything we'd ever hoped and pods could be a one year wonder. i doubt either of these 2 scenarios tho. pods should fit in nicely with the direction the sox will take now and either it works or it doesn't. it sure didn't work the other way. the extra arm and ptbnl AND money i think offsets lee's extra value over pods.

Palehose13

01-05-2005, 11:31 AM

I'm among those that favor the trade. I don't want to discount the value of CLee, but by trading him the Sox got a leadoff hitter that is a threat on the basepaths, strengthened the bullpen, and signed the much needed "fifth starter". I will miss Lee and hope he does well with the Brewers. However, I think the trade will be better in the long run for the team.

TornLabrum

01-05-2005, 11:35 AM

I'm among those that favor the trade. I don't want to discount the value of CLee, but by trading him the Sox got a leadoff hitter that is a threat on the basepaths, strengthened the bullpen, and signed the much needed "fifth starter". I will miss Lee and hope he does well with the Brewers. However, I think the trade will be better in the long run for the team.
Only if Podsednik gets on base more like he did in his rookie year than last year. A .313 OBP for a leadoff man is (to put it mildly) pathetic.

batmanZoSo

01-05-2005, 11:35 AM

ondafarm and I have been having a fairly interesting Podsednik/Lee debate over in an obscure thread about the Brewers minor-league system. We disagree on how to interpret some stats about Lee, and I'd like to hear what others have to say.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=42796&page=2&pp=18
I can't really follow all that stat talk, or I just don't want to. But I will say that I'd rather have Podsednik and Hernandez than just Lee. I never thought it was worth paying Lee that much on this particular team. In my opinion he wasn't valuable enough and we're better off with better pitching and at least one guy who can do damage on the basepaths.

Palehose13

01-05-2005, 11:39 AM

Only if Podsednik gets on base more like he did in his rookie year than last year. A .313 OBP for a leadoff man is (to put it mildly) pathetic.
Agreed, but i think he will have a better year. He has already stated that last season he tried to swing for the fences and carry the Brewer offense. He won't have to this year. I think if he just focuses on getting on base, he will be a decent leadoff hitter...heck better than anyone else we've had in years.

idseer

01-05-2005, 11:43 AM

Agreed, but i think he will have a better year. He has already stated that last season he tried to swing for the fences and carry the Brewer offense. He won't have to this year. I think if he just focuses on getting on base, he will be a decent leadoff hitter...heck better than anyone else we've had in years.
my only question here is .... WHY? why would a scrappy leadoff hitter think he should put aside his game to become the power man on the team? the brewers have guys who can hit the ball out. they have rbi men batting in the right position. so WHY? wasn't this a really stupid thing for him to have put on himself in the first place?

Palehose13

01-05-2005, 11:49 AM

my only question here is .... WHY? why would a scrappy leadoff hitter think he should put aside his game to become the power man on the team? the brewers have guys who can hit the ball out. they have rbi men batting in the right position. so WHY? wasn't this a really stupid thing for him to have put on himself in the first place?
Did you see the Brewers play last year?

My thought as to why is because maybe he put pressure on himself after his rookie season. IIRC, he started the 2004 season playing like he did in 2003. Then, when the Brewers weren't producing much offense, he could have put it on himself to carry the load...since he was seen as one of the team leaders. Of course, this is all just a theory.

TornLabrum

01-05-2005, 12:09 PM

my only question here is .... WHY? why would a scrappy leadoff hitter think he should put aside his game to become the power man on the team? the brewers have guys who can hit the ball out. they have rbi men batting in the right position. so WHY? wasn't this a really stupid thing for him to have put on himself in the first place?
Maybe that's why he was a 26-year-old rookie.

Ol' No. 2

01-05-2005, 12:16 PM

ondafarm and I have been having a fairly interesting Podsednik/Lee debate over in an obscure thread about the Brewers minor-league system. We disagree on how to interpret some stats about Lee, and I'd like to hear what others have to say.One problem with this debate is that a player's "value" is not independant of the team. The Brewers really needed a RH power hitting OF. Lee's value to them was a lot higher than it was to the Sox, who already have several RH power hitters. Likewise, the Sox really needed a leadoff man who was a base-stealing threat, so Podsednik probably had more value to the Sox than to the Brewers. A winning team has to be balance, and a player who improves the balance is going to have more value to that team than one who doesn't.

mcfish

01-05-2005, 01:06 PM

I can't really follow all that stat talk, or I just don't want to. But I will say that I'd rather have Podsednik and Hernandez than just Lee. I never thought it was worth paying Lee that much on this particular team. In my opinion he wasn't valuable enough and we're better off with better pitching and at least one guy who can do damage on the basepaths.Do I hear a Moneyball debate coming on?

maurice

01-05-2005, 01:28 PM

Lee is a more valuable player than Podsednik, but he's not more valuable than Pod + the three or four additional players the Sox added as a result of the deal.

Statistical analysis is great when measuring discrete categories of past performance under similar conditions with the benefit of huge sample sizes. (As an extreme example, you can use stats to conclusively prove that Carlos Lee was a better hitter than Luis Rivas, or that Pod was one of the best base stealers in MLB. Only those who believe the Earth is flat would deny this.) However, in an effort to quantify even the unquantifiable, some baseball fans have cast sound statistical reasoning to the wind and made ridiculous arguments based on illogical reasoning. This usually takes the form of miniscule sample sizes or the false belief that anything unquantifiable is irrelevant.

A. Cavatica

01-05-2005, 03:18 PM

i don't think there's much question that lee is the superior player. i fail to see how anyone could argue otherwise.
But Podsednik had a higher fantasy value!

I completely agree that Lee is a better hitter, that the Sox needed a leadoff hitter more than anything, that we made good use of the cash saved by trading Lee, and all of that. Summary: it was a very good trade that could turn into a great trade if we get the 2003 Podsednik.

What's interesting to me is that ondafarm believes Podsednik is better than Lee straight up. He has made some claims that (to me) defy common sense, and he has cited stats that (to me) are not convincing. ondafarm calls himself a stathead. I am not biased against statistical analysis and I'm willing to be convinced. Which one of us is nuts? :D:

eshunn2001

01-05-2005, 03:25 PM

As far as what we got with the money we saved it was beneficial. As far as the Trade goes we got robbed, We could have gotten more for CLee, and we should have.

idseer

01-05-2005, 03:30 PM

But Podsednik had a higher fantasy value!

I completely agree that Lee is a better hitter, that the Sox needed a leadoff hitter more than anything, that we made good use of the cash saved by trading Lee, and all of that. Summary: it was a very good trade that could turn into a great trade if we get the 2003 Podsednik.

What's interesting to me is that ondafarm believes Podsednik is better than Lee straight up. He has made some claims that (to me) defy common sense, and he has cited stats that (to me) are not convincing. ondafarm calls himself a stathead. I am not biased against statistical analysis and I'm willing to be convinced. Which one of us is nuts? :D:
'scuse me if i'm wrong ... but only a nut would argue with a nut, wouldn't they? :neener:

Flight #24

01-05-2005, 03:41 PM

As far as what we got with the money we saved it was beneficial. As far as the Trade goes we got robbed, We could have gotten more for CLee, and we should have.
When you have a team take on 6mil in salary, it reduces the talent you get in return. Had Lee been making equivalent $$$ to what the Brewers gave up, they would have sent more over in terms of raw talent. Of course, had he been making 2mil, trading him to free up $$$ for pitching/2B/C wouldn't have been necessary.

Jerome

01-05-2005, 03:45 PM

I think this trade has to be looked at as part salary dump. w/o Hernandez, this is a terrible trade.

The only thing I'm worried about is that Clee has been pretty good over the last three years or so. Podsednik had one great year and one sucky year.

player for player, a bad trade.

as a salary dump, a decent trade

(And a .313 OBP for a leadoff man is pathetic.)

Palehose13

01-05-2005, 04:23 PM

[/color]

What's interesting to me is that ondafarm believes Podsednik is better than Lee straight up. He has made some claims that (to me) defy common sense, and he has cited stats that (to me) are not convincing. ondafarm calls himself a stathead. I am not biased against statistical analysis and I'm willing to be convinced. Which one of us is nuts? :D:
I love Podsednik, but as of right now Lee>>Podesednik.

I thought that you were discussing the merits of the trade and all the players that were received/gotten for trading Lee. I think for the 2005 White Sox: Lee < Pods, Vizcaino, Hernandez, and possibly more...

SABRSox

01-06-2005, 02:33 AM

I read this string of posts, and I just don't understand this concept of "retardation of OBP" based upon Carlos Lee's place in the batting order. How does Lee have any effect on the OBP of the players batting before or after him whatsoever? There are way too many hidden variables in such a small sample size to give this stat any sort of meaning whatsoever. Basically, after reading that, it undermined whatever point you were trying to make.

When you try to statistically compare Podsednik and Lee, all you end up concluding is how utterly futile it is. They are different types of players, and don't compare.

IMO, Lee is more valuable to a team. But, for the White Sox, the trade of Lee brought them financial flexibility that provided more value than Lee ever could have. Looking at the stats, this was a bad trade for the White Sox (they lost win shares in this trade.) But when you look at the economics of the thing, it makes sense.